The Super Delegate Doomsday Scenario will not happen...Sorry MSM

[sfam]

As stupid as the Democratic party has been at times, not even they are stupid enough to let the MSM's fantasy Doomsday scenario happen. Bottom line, the Super Delegates WILL NOT decide the election in opposition to the popular vote/delegate count.

Why? 'Cause super delegates can read polls. Super delegates understand what is necessary to get elected, and more importantly, lots of these super delegates will be running for office in November or the year afterwards. They WILL get behind a candidate if they break out from the pack, or one who consistently looks like they can beat McCain. So if Barack ends up with more elected delegates and consistently does better against McCain, the super delegates WILL end up supporting him and affirming this.

But more importantly, so will either Hillary or Barack. NEITHER of them wants to win the primary only to get trounced in the GE. Neither wants to go down in history as the cause of our loss. If Hillary finishes with less elected delegates, and its very clear that Obama does better against McCain, she WILL drop out. Same with Obama. If he doesn't win any of the big states, and isn't leading the delegate race, he'll drop out.

Bottom line, I just don't believe that either the party leadership or the candidates are stupid or ego-filled enough to make this happen. It's a WONDERFUL debate topic for the MSM, but its just not in the cards.

[fenriswolf]

1. valid point

a politicians number one priority is to get reelected, come convention time if the super delegates give it to the candidate with less delegates they would be putting their positions in serious jeopardy.

[killbotfactory]

2. Any party calling itself democratic has no business allowing the party elite to overturn

the will of it's ordinary members.

[Labors of Hercules]

15. That's fine if the will of the ordinary voters is clear.

but the issue is that the ordinary voters have not yet made a clear majority for either candidate.

[UALRBSofL]

3. Have you ever considered popular vote with caucus?

In my opinion you can't get a popular vote with a caucus.

[sfam]

10. That's a fairly strange opinion...then again, maybe I'm missing your point...

Are you saying that Caucuses shouldn't be allowed, or that they are invalid in some way? If not, please clarify. If so...

So the Iowa caucuses are bunk? I sort of come down on the side of thinking that the states MUST be able to determine how best they should vote. This is clearly their decision. If they think a caucus makes sense, who are we to say otherwise?

Incidentally, Hillary didn't really start pushing this message out until after it was clear she was losing.

[beyurslf]

17. Caucuses are inherently undemocratic.

Unless you have 3 or 4 hours on some random weeknight to commit to "voting," then you can't go. I went to mine. It was 3 hours in the middle of an ice storm. Had we been voting all day, I could have voted in the morning when it was nice out. I had 3 friends who couldn't get off work to spend all evening "voting." My sister didn't have a babysitter for her 3 kids so that she could "vote." My brother's caucus site was 45 minutes away in a different county because of the way his state senate lines are drawn. His wife was at work and he didn't have a sitter for their kids.
These are all voters who consistently vote for Democrats and who often vote in primaries in August and local or city elections too.
Caucuses disenfranchise the poor, who may not have somewhere to take their kids for an evening. Those who have less education are more likely to work at night or on weekends when caucuses occur. The elederly may not be able to get out all evening or in bad weather. And there is nothing "democratic" about having to publicly declare your support for someone.

[sfam]

18. I really think its up to the states to decide that...

Really I do. For us to think we know best is just a bit odd. Nobody is disenfranchised. They have methods to work around this. For instance, in Maine you can do absentee ballots - I believe you can in other states as well. But again, this is THEIR decision - not ours. They MUST know what's best for them.

[TomClash]

4. What happens if

the popular vote and dleegate count are won by different candidates and/or

the SDs have to vote on whether to seat the FLA and MI delegates?

[UALRBSofL]

6. That would be a nightmare

I don't know.

[sfam]

11. I just don't see that happening...

It looks like Michigan will be doing a redo of some kind. But again, I think this is more of a talking point for Hillary going forward, not something she really pushes for Florida - even if the Florida delegates are.

Again, she knows the implication of this just as much as we do. Do you really think Hillary would want a tainted nomination - one that essentially finishes her in the GE? She's really a smart person. She won't go for that, no matter what her current tactical talking points say.

[Seen the light]

5. Obama will sweep TX/OH/PA/NC and all this won't matter

This whole thing will be moot.

[Orangepeel]

7. You are right. Most of the superdelegates have not endorsed.

Why are they waiting? Because they are going to go with the winner of the delegate race.

[UALRBSofL]

8. If it's very close and Florida isn't included

People will not be happy.

[Orangepeel]

12. Florida would net Clinton 38 pledged delegates and as many as 22 supers

That would make a difference, of course. But I don't think it will come down to that. The DNC voted to strip Florida of its delegates. All the people who voted to do that won't now vote to let those delegates decide the nominee.

From a political perspective, many people will believe that Florida is a lost cause in 2008 against McCain anyway, no matter who is the nominee. So, there's not much motivation to make the FL delegation happy from that perspective.

[sfam]

16. Obama is flat out owning this issue...Florida won't get seated...

But Obama is getting the message out rather clearly that Hillary is somehow trying to steal the election from the people.

And truly, he's played this wonderfully, from his "accidental" memo release, to the outrage of insiders taking the thing. My guess is Hillary is still on her heels on this issue, and hasn't yet figured out how to respond well.

But make no mistake folks - we are discussing this because Obama made it an issue - he did so NOT to avert a political disaster, but to paint Hillary in the short term as someone trying to steal the election. To date its worked wonderfully.

Just to be clear, I TOTALLY support Obama, but this chatter among my fellow Obama supoprters that Hillary does nasty things and Obama doesn't is pretty naive, especially when confronted with something such as this.

[Orangepeel]

22. I don't think "nasty" is the right word...

Supporters on both sides have been nasty.

But the campaigns are both engaging in no-holds-barred political hardball, not gratuitous nastiness. It's tough, but that's not a bad thing. I want the winner of the primaries to be able to beat the republicans in a political fight. Which ever one wins will have shown s/he can do that.

Otherwise, I agree with you fully.

[HereSince1628]

9. I think it's a consequence of how the punditry views the DLC connection to

superdelegates and the "street" knowledge about why there are superdelegates.

I'm not saying it is correct but that seems to be what is going on.

Membership in the DLC proper, not the New Democrats, is a by invitation affair. The criteria used to make you a superdelegate would make every superdelegate eligible for membership in the DLC, and through the 1990's many of them were. This is what many of the pundits mean when they talk about "institutional" advantages going to HRC. There is a well known connection between the DLC and superdelegates. It's strength has never been tested in quite this way, so it's open to speculation which is GREAT for the punditry.

The other thing the pundits are feeding on is the notion that superdelegates were created to prevent the unwashed peasants of the Democratic base from doing something populist that would upset the well ordered workings of the Democratic good-old boy machine (as the base is blamed for with the candidacy of McGovern in the BCE).

Given these notions are being brought toward syzygy the MSM's sizzle-selling ways are trying to hype it.

[sfam]

13. Pundits are feeding on anything that fills the 24 hour news cycle...

The Doomsday scenario fits the bill.

Incidentally, on pure tactics, I think Obama is truly slamming Hillary on this one. He's slyly put out the message that she's trying to steal the election, even though its not at all clear he'll win the delegate count. From the "accidental" release of his voting count, to their take on the dastardly seating of the Florida delegates, they are totally owning Hillary on this issue in the MSM.

And yeah, I do totally support Obama, but for all those out there saying that Obama isn't doing tactical shit, just like Hillary, they are missing part of the picture. Obama definitely comes ahead here.

[HereSince1628]

20. Yeah, his campaign has made a pre-emptive sally, a shot across the bow,

whatever you want to call it. I don't know if it was needed or not. I don't think anyone really does.

I've always been unhappy about superdelegates. I think they make the name "Democratic Party" an oxymoron. Contemplating superdelegates always makes me feel like a peo'n.

[sfam]

25. They did a wonderfully effective shot across the bow...had nothing to do with...

whether it was needed or not, IMHO. They saw and opening and they took it. Now the commentary in part is about how Hillary is trying to "steal" the election. Obama has turned her institutional support into a glaring negative - this, he hopes will affect the upcoming races. I really don't think its anything more than that.

[NastyRiffraff]

14. Dean will do everything possible to avoid a SD showdown

It's the LAST thing he, or the party wants, for obvious reasons. There's division as it is; we don't need more. That's what he was talking about when he mentioned an "arrangement," should it come to that.

[sfam]

19. Its just not gonna happen...

As much as the MSM wants it, neither the super delegates, nor the candidates are that stupid.

[UALRBSofL]

21. If going into the convention it's close

And the superdelegates make the decision of the nominee do you think the losing candidate and there supporters will be pissed? I think they will and I don't know how it will effect the GE but in my opinion it could. Already Florida is restricted so I have a feeling it will go red. We will have to wait and see.

[TexasObserver]

23. I agree that the Super Dupers will follow, not lead, the people.

They don't win elections by disagreeing with their consituents and thumbing their noses at them.

Not all, but most will fall into line with their constituents, except the ones Hill and Bill can buy off by promising some plum.

[Sir Jeffrey]

24. Agreed...

politics is more about winning and power than loyalty and friendship. Whichever candidate ends up with the most pledged delegates will be the nominee. There is too much at stake for the Democratic establishment to piss on the will of the voters and then turn around and expect them to actively campaign for the loser this fall. There is a ton of money out there to be had, a lot of enthusiasm for both candidates, and a real chance to run the table on Republicans for a few elections at least. I think if there is a respectful and gracious concession once it becomes clear who will end up with the most pledged delegates, that would be best for the party.

I have to admit that the only scenario I see this happening would be if Obama is marginally ahead on pledged delegates but Clinton wins because of superdelegates. I can't see it going the other way. Clinton was supposed to win, and if she does, so be it. If she loses, what does that say about her ability to win a general election against John McCain? She had better name recognition, more money, and a 25 point head start on Obama. She would not be starting the GE campaign with those advantages, yet they would still select her against the will of the voters? I just can't see it going to that point. It is not like Obama is a polarizing dickhead who is squeaking by with small wins and high negatives.

[VotesForWomen]

26. if delegate counts are close or disputed, superdelegates could be a factor. nt

[Cosmocat]

27. Not a chance Hill steps aside ...

Not a chance in heck ...

The only way she steps aside is if Obama wins out the rest of the primares and has a marked lead ... She WILL continue to challenge the Florida and Michigan delegate issue, and WILL try to beat Obama with Super Delegates if she is not prohibatively behind Obama in delegates from the primary ...

If she pushes the issue, don't count on super delegates in mass doing anything other than selling out ... Many are not elected officials, they have nothing to lose ... Elected officials, what they do with their delegate votes in most cases won't factor in on reelection ...

[Hill_YesWeWill]

28. I hope you are right, but I also do not think that questions of electability should trump pledged

delegates. To be fair, you didn't suggest that it should, but you did list electability and a majority pledged delegates as the 2 conditions that would factor into the super-delegates decision, and there's an insinuation there that electability could play just as much a role as the pledged delegate count, and I do have a problem with that if that means we nominate the candidate that did not win the most votes.

[Quixote1818]

29. Thats absolutly right. They want to keep their jobs. nt